Surrogate's Court Primaries

Published: September 6, 1996

Next Tuesday's Democratic primary elections for the obscure but powerful post of Surrogate's Court judge in Manhattan and Brooklyn have sparked intense competition and bitter debates over personality and patronage. Voters need to decide which of the candidates have the best mix of integrity, expertise, judicial temperament and administrative skills for a job that entails overseeing wills, estates and adoptions and dispensing millions of dollars in fees to lawyers acting as executors, guardians and estate trustees.

In a fierce battle in Manhattan, the incumbent Surrogate Renee Roth faces a tough re-election challenge from Karen Burstein, a former State Senator and Family Court judge who ran unsuccessfully for State Attorney General two years ago.

We supported Ms. Burstein for Attorney General and respect her ability to spotlight issues and advocate constructive reform within the political arena. But Ms. Burstein, who quit the Family Court because she found being a judge too ''passive,'' is miscast for the surrogate's job, which calls for tempered judicial and administrative skills to wrestle behind the scenes with arcane issues of trust and estates and tax law.

Judge Roth, during 14 years in the Surrogate's job, has proved fair and able. She has brought a refreshing measure of expertise and integrity to bear on a court that was mired in patronage and accusations of political favoritism when she ran promising reforms in 1982. Her most notable failing has been insufficient aggressiveness in overhauling the office, which oversees the estates of people who die without wills or known heirs. But over all she has done an admirable job and boosted the court's credibility. She takes justifiable pride in setting a high standard of competence for fiduciary appointments and spreading the patronage to include women and minorities.

Now Judge Roth will have to set even higher goals for her second term if she is to avoid the taint of suspicion. A relatively small coterie of qualified lawyers still receives a disproportionate share of the cases and fees distributed by the court, and many of them have shown up as big contributors to her campaign. By contrast, Ms. Burstein, to her credit, is not accepting contributions from lawyers who practice in Surrogate's Court, and has limited individual donations to $500.

On the basis of her solid overall performance, Judge Roth earns our endorsement. But it comes with a challenge to rethink the system of fiduciary appointments to minimize any appearance that big contributors to her campaign are being rewarded.

The Brooklyn Surrogate's Court has long put the needs of politicians before those of the public. All four candidates vow to clean up the place. But only State Supreme Court Justice Michael Feinberg has strong credentials. Justice Feinberg had extensive experience as a private lawyer in the Surrogate's Court before becoming a Civil Court judge and Supreme Court justice. He has a clear grasp of the court's problems and could do a better job than his three opponents -- Howard Lasher, who capped his lackluster career in the State Assembly by becoming a lackluster member of the City Council, and two undistinguished Civil Court judges, Lila Gold and Ferne Goldstein.

Justice Feinberg has promised reforms ranging from a panel to screen appointments and recommend changes in how the place is run, down to keeping the office open at lunchtime as a convenience to the public. But his ardent backing by the Democratic county organization, which wants to retain its patronage jobs and fees, is disquieting. With some wariness we endorse Justice Feinberg on the basis of his good record, and trust that he will stay true to his reform pledges.